[eDebate] Judging Philosophy for Georgia State
Wed Sep 20 00:25:19 CDT 2006
Since I've been hired for a full judging commitment you'll probably want to
know something about me before you do your judge prefs. So here's my first
shot at a judging philosophy for college debate.
My background (for those not fortunate enough to know me): 4 years of LD in
high school with a year of policy my senior year. In college I debated for
Georgia State and West Georgia. I won some awards in my time. I've judged
and mercenarily coached high school policy debate for 6 years now. Probably
200+ rounds judged.
My view of debate: first and foremost, I don't think I'm charting new
territory here by saying debate is a game. I see my role as the judge as
someone who evaluates who played the game better. The goal of the game being
convincing me to vote for your team. If that means reading a plan with as
many nuclear war scenarios as you can in 9 minutes, good for you. If that
means playing music and saying fuck the man, good for you. If that means
doing something that gets you called a James Thomas wanna-be, good for you.
I don't really care. The debate isn't about me. It's about providing a forum
to train the debaters to be better at whatever they want to do.
Also, I have not cut one single card for this topic nor gone out of my way
to read about it. The extent of what I know about these cases and how the
topic works is what I can remember from the poli sci classes I've taken
(It's my major).
If you haven't struck me yet, here's more you can read:
I default to an offense/defense paradigm when evaluating competing
arguments. This is college debate where we should all know that impact
comparison is where debates are won and lost. This goes for all the
traditional policy arguments and the assimilated critical arguments.
Framework: I favor inclusion, but there's got to be a point to what you're
doing and it has to be discernible. Even with my West Georgia stigma there's
a limit to the crazy shit I'll let teams get away with.
Flowing: I plan to do it to the best of my abilities on my laptop. Call it
taking notes. I plan to try and remember what the debaters said and not what
I think I remember them saying.
Speaker points: Obviously make good/smart arguments, but also know that I'm
a stickler for clarity. Partially because I'm lazy and I'm not going to
strain to try and understand someone who's there to persuade me to vote for
them, but also because I have some slight hearing loss.
Feel free to ask me questions before the round. You won't be the first and
probably not the last.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman